On 03/17/2010 06:40 PM, sebb wrote:
The purpose of multiple archives is to allow
users to choose their preferred unarchiver.
It therefore follows that the presumption that the files in zip
archives must have LF line endings is wrong.
Nope. It presumes that the sources will be buildable
On 17/03/2010, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 03/17/2010 04:56 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> > On 17/03/2010, Mladen Turk wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But that is exactly how it's done now.
> > > Please double check the .zip file. Windows dir *has* DOS line endings.
> > >
> >
> > But the N&L files don't have DOS EOLs
On 03/17/2010 04:56 PM, sebb wrote:
On 17/03/2010, Mladen Turk wrote:
But that is exactly how it's done now.
Please double check the .zip file. Windows dir *has* DOS line endings.
But the N&L files don't have DOS EOLs.
Presumption that .zip file MUST be targeted
for windows and thus
On 17/03/2010, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 03/17/2010 12:26 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > -1. .zip is usable on platforms having broken tar like Solaris.
> > > The files in windows/directory have CRLF
> > >
> >
> > Seems to me that this is penalising Windows users for bugs on other OSes.
> >
> >
On 03/17/2010 12:26 PM, sebb wrote:
-1. .zip is usable on platforms having broken tar like Solaris.
The files in windows/directory have CRLF
Seems to me that this is penalising Windows users for bugs on other OSes.
Having the wrong EOLs on Windows makes it difficult to read the text
files
On 16/03/2010, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 05:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> >
> > The KEYS file is a bit old, but I assume it won't actually be used.
> >
> > Also, the source/ directory still has the 1.0.2 version in it, which
> > confused me a bit.
> >
> >
>
> This has nothing to do with a relea
--
From: "Mladen Turk"
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
On 03/16/2010 07:17 PM, ebb wrote:
There's a problem with the Manifests in the source and javadoc j
On 03/16/2010 07:17 PM, ebb wrote:
There's a problem with the Manifests in the source and javadoc jars.
They have:
Implementation-Vendor-Id: commons-daemon
but that should be:
Implementation-Vendor-Id: org.apache
This is really getting annoying.
I really don't wish to do another release
ju
On 16/03/2010, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 05:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> >
> > The KEYS file is a bit old, but I assume it won't actually be used.
> >
> > Also, the source/ directory still has the 1.0.2 version in it, which
> > confused me a bit.
> >
> >
>
> This has nothing to do with a relea
On 03/16/2010 05:22 PM, sebb wrote:
-1
I think the packaging needs to be improved.
Ping. Have you read my comments?
Regards
--
^TM
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-m
On 03/16/2010 05:22 PM, sebb wrote:
The KEYS file is a bit old, but I assume it won't actually be used.
Also, the source/ directory still has the 1.0.2 version in it, which
confused me a bit.
This has nothing to do with a release.
It's a folder README. fixed anyhow
The source/ dir also ha
In 16/03/2010, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Calling this again due to a typo and
> removing site and dormant subcomponents from the
> source distribution.
>
> We had 1.0.2 release last month and now 1.0.3 solves
> few minor bug fixes and adds couple of new features.
> Some of the old files n
Hi,
Calling this again due to a typo and
removing site and dormant subcomponents from the
source distribution.
We had 1.0.2 release last month and now 1.0.3 solves
few minor bug fixes and adds couple of new features.
Some of the old files not having ASL license header
were updated, although some
13 matches
Mail list logo